07/12/2010

Defense will argue Rod got bad legal advice

The afternoon session has started off with what amounts to a preview of the case that Rod Blagojevich’s defense will start presenting to the jury later this week.

Blagojevich’s attorney, Aaron Goldstein, asked Robert Greenlee, a lawyer, whether he told Blagojevich he was doing something wrong by trying to swap a U.S. Senate appointment for a job for himself.

Greenlee is heard on a number of wiretap calls in 2008 in which Blagojevich bounced ideas off him for trading the seat for a job as the head of a charitable foundation or in the cabinet of incoming President Barack Obama. Nowhere does Greenlee stop the conversation and tell the governor what he was doing was wrong.

That, according to Greenlee, was because he told the governor what he wanted to hear in order to make Blagojevich easier to work for.

Blagojevich lawyers have informed the court they intend to raise advice of counsel as a defense. The tactic essentially means Blagojevich, who plans to testify, will acknowledge he did the actions outlined against him in the case but will argue he was surrounded by lawyers who told him it was all right.

The defense is aimed at removing Blagojevich’s intent from the equation for jurors.

Goldstein pointed to a conversation that Blagojevich, Greenlee and chief of staff John Harris, another lawyer, had in one call on Nov., 5, 2008, about the governor being named to the head of a foundation in exchange for picking Obama’s favorite choice for his Senate seat.

“At any point, did you tell Governor Blagojevich he should not be engaging in this type of discussion?” Goldstein asked.

Greenlee said that he did not.

“You and John Harris were in agreement with this idea?” Goldstein asked a moment later.

That wasn’t a fair statement, Greenlee said. Again, Greenlee said he would tell the governor one thing while thinking something different.

In other conversations, the governor’s general counsel, William Quinlan, also was present, Goldstein pointed out. And in one of those conversations, Greenlee had told Blagojevich that no one was more qualified to serve as secretary of Health and Human Services than the governor was.

Greenlee said he had previously disagreed with the governor about that idea, but days later decided to act like he was on the team and pump the governor up. That was because he was working for Blagojevich, Goldstein suggested.

“For the state of Illinois, for the people,” Greenlee answered.

So for the people, you decided to just agree with him? Goldstein asked. But prosecutors objected to that question.

Goldstein then directed Greenlee to a Nov. 7, 2008, conversation with Blagojevich when the governor asked Greenlee to check on whether a senator's wife could lobby in Washington. The idea was that Blagojevich might want to appoint himself to the Senate seat and then have Patti Blagojevich make money as a lobbyist in Washington.

In that instance, Greenlee had a staffer find the answer and then Greenlee passed it on. The information given to Blagojevich was that it was permissible but that the wife would not be allowed to lobby her spouse.

The staffer had obtained the rule from the Senate ethics manual. Goldstein tried to paint as legal research, but the government objected.

--Jeff Coen

Posted at 02:45:33 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Maybe this is correct, in that Blago CONTINUES TO GET BAD LEGAL ADVICE. For instance, several of the prior reports are that his defense team failed to comply with the first rule of cross-examination: Don't ask a question unless you know the answer.

However, personally, I don't give a [Blagoism] whether he gets good advice or not.

Also Blago was supposedly a graduate of Pepperdine Law School, so he shouldn't need legal advice to know right from wrong. However, he admits that he learned nothing there. That, however, didn't stop him from getting a job in Daley's State's Attorney office.

Also, I question the blogger's assertion that this is a preview of the defense case. Probably not.

Jack, Jack, Jack. You know, I know and the American people know that Blago is not guilty. This IS part of the case. The other part is that every single person so far has admitted to lying to Blago. And where is Rezko? If you consult with a leagal representative and he prepares a will you EXPECT the will to be valid. You shouldn't have to face criminal charges. The bottom line here is that the feds FAILED to show real criminal intent and Blago has shown that he wanted to get as much as possible without crossing the line. Same as Obama, Dashale and all the other politicians.

LOL. This is like that Seinfeld episode where George has sex with the cleaning lady on his office desk, and when confronted with the accusation he replies "Was that wrong? Because if someone had told me it was wrong, I wouldn't have done it." It was a funny scene. It was funny because George's response was so ridiculous and outlandish. Our former Governor is like George Costanza. Its pathetic.

It seems to me that one could make the argument that he got bad legal advice... if he in fact asked for legal advice from someone with which he had a client/lawyer relationship with. Just because he has a staffer (or several) who are lawyers, if they are not acting as legal counsel for him, they have no obligation to offer legal advice. This sounds like more smoke-and-mirrors, point-fingers-at-everyone-else flim-flammery.

Also, it is interesting that you are saying that a graduate of Pepperdine Law School is pleading ignorance of the law.

It is clear that Blago knew what the [Blagoism] was he was doing, and his "fn grandma" taoe shows his intent. Why you apologists continue to spread this misinformation is beyond me, Goodmongo, Goodmongo, Goodmongo. Now go eat your beans, and then you can toot more all over this board.

Steve Martin used to do a routine where his defense was "I'm sorry. I forgot that stealing was illegal". Maybe Blago should try that next. As a lawyer, I don't see how he can claim ignorance of the law.

"So for the people, you decided to just agree with him? Goldstein asked. But prosecutors objected to that question."
Geesh, I wish the writer would give the nature of the objection -- I continually see nothing wrong with this kind of questioning, especially on cross examination. Every objection should have a rule of evidence attached to it. I have read that the prosecution has not been doing that; sloppy courtroom.

People, people, let's not dwell on the past or linger in the present but look to the future. Sure, in the past Emporor Blago has squandered millions of our hard earned dollars tilting at windmills and preening; presently he is shelling out millions of 'believer' dollars contributed as campaign funds but now rerouted to defense, but what of tomorrow?

If Narcissus goes to prison, and I believe he should, WE, the citizens of Illinois may well face hundreds of lawsuits from his fellow inmates, justly pleading that sharing space with the windbag is, in fact cruel and unusual punishment. I ask you, could any resident of Illinois during Blago's term of office honestly deny such a petition?